Sunday, October 15, 2017

Ultramontanism's Death Sentence

Pope Pius XII

In 1952 Pope Pius XII said the following, in a public address recorded among his official acts:

Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.

It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor. Again:It is necessary, therefore, to reaffirm that no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.

What can the Ultramontanists, those with an exaggerated view of papal authority so prominent in the debate over Amoris laetitia, make of this situation?

Presumably, in 1952 all good Ultramontanists said that, because the Pope had said so, it follows that it is true that the death penalty is not only permissible, but for sufficiently serious crimes, uniquely appropriate. (What else does it mean, to say that a criminal has 'disposed' of his 'right to life'?)

Today, in 2017, all good Ultramontanists are saying that, because the Pope has said so, it follows that it is false that the the death penalty is ever permissible.

Now, the official Ultramontanist line is that Papal authority, being supreme and (for practical purposes, always) infallible, can never be self contradictory. But between these two papal statements there is a contradiction as plain as the nose on your face. The suggestion that the 2017 statement is a 'development' or 'clarification' of what was said in 1952, or that is draws out implications of this and other expressions of the Church's teaching on capital punishment over the centuries, is not something one needs to haggle over. It is simply insane.

But for those who wish to haggle, a simple test of the development of doctrine is to ask if later authors can continue to accept earlier expressions of a doctrine as being true. Thus, we find the discussion of grace in Augustine lacking some distinctions developed by later authors and used in dogmatic statements, but Augustine is not for that reason wrong, and what he writes is not, with hindsight, heresy. It might on occasion be misleading to quote Augustine on grace, but one need not disavow him. In this case, by contrast, it is evident that Pope Francis disagrees with Pope Pius XII: they can't both be right.

Today's Ultramontanists are in a bind, therefore. In order to uphold the supreme and (for practical purposes, always) infallible authority of Pope Francis, they are going to have to admit that the authority of Pope Pius XII was not so supreme or infallible after all.

But if people would have been wrong in 1952 to throw themselves on their faces before Pius XII and agree with what he said about capital punishment, just because he'd said it, then the hideous possibility must exist that people may be wrong to agree with everything that Pope Francis says in 2017, just because he's said it.

Pope Francis' statement, by so simply and so clearly contradicting his predecessor of 65 years ago, demonstrates the falsity of Ultramontanism in a way I would never have thought possible. We may point out to the Ultramontanists that the contradiction of one Pope by another on a matter of faith and morals is possible, given the fallibility of most of their pronouncements, even when they are giving every appearance of exercising their teaching office (let alone when they are talking off the cuff on aeroplanes, or writing private letters), but usually Popes are far too careful in preparing their public remarks to allow this to happen, except in the most subtle and tacit way. But Pope Francis has done it. The game is up.

Ultramontanism as a practical guide for Catholics only works, insofar as it can work at all, in times of great stability. At times like the present, it is self-contradictory and absurd. After Pope Francis' statement on the death penalty, no Catholic with intellectual integrity can continue to hold it.

Where does this leave the ordinary Catholic? The ordinary Catholic is obliged to believe what the Church teaches. The Church hands on faithfully what she has received from her Lord. We can see Pope Pius XII doing that in the quoted passage: using the language of his time, certainly, but in its content faithful to the Popes, the Fathers and Doctors, and Scripture (see Gen. 9:6; Lev. 20-1; Deut. 13; Deut. 21:22; Matt. 15:4; Mk. 7:10; Jn. 19:11; Rom. 13:4; Heb. 10:28).

28 comments:

Of course you have proved only that there is a problem for Ultramontanists who think that these contradictory utterances are all papal. Ultramontanists who are Sedevacantist need not be troubled! Indeed one might say that you have neatly demonstrated that a consistent Ultramontanist should now espouse Sedevacantism and that the logical case for Sedevacantism is at least as strong as the case for Ultramontanism!

Thank you for this important blog post. May I suggest that, since an aspect of Pope Francis' aims involves updating the 1997 Catechism to reflect his judgment on the im/morality of the death penalty, you also contrast Pope Francis' words and the words of the 1997 Catechism (and St. John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae) with the Church's teaching in the Roman Catechism:

“Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: ‘In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.’ (Ps 101:8)”– Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III, 5, n. 4– http://j.mp/CatechismTrentDeathPenalty

And here's what the 1997 Catechism has to say about the Roman Catechism:

“The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching...” (Catechesi Tradendae #13) The Council of Trent initiated a remarkable organization of the Church's catechesis. Thanks to the work of holy bishops and theologians such as St. Peter Canisius, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo or St. Robert Bellarmine, it occasioned the publication of numerous catechisms.– Catechism of the Catholic Church, Prologue, Paragraph 9– http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/prologue.htm#9

I don't think you quite appreciate the similarities between "Ulramontanists" and brainwashed Protestant fundamentalists. I am sure they will come right back at you saying that Francis didn't contradict Pius XII as he couldn't have because he's the Pope. It must, therefore, be a legitimate development of doctrine and the only reason you can't see that is because you are not clever/faithful/trusting/respecting of the papal personage enough to understand it. If you really pray for the grace of wisdom then you too will come to see that the law of non-contradiction no longer applies in Catholic theology, so it is quite impossible for the two statements to be contradictory.

In reality of course you are absolutely correct, but Catholics have been doing these mental gymnastics and somersaults ever since they needed to start explaining away Vatican II and the fact that Extra ecclesiam nulla salus really means that everybody outside the Church is saved.

"It must, therefore, be a legitimate development of doctrine and the only reason you can't see that is because you are not clever/faithful/trusting/respecting of the papal personage enough to understand it."

In the New Testament, Paul unfolds the philosophy behind the lex talonis. In Chapter 12 of his Letter to the Romans, Paul discourages his readers from avenging themselves by quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 (“Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. I will repay!”). Paul later encourages them to rely on due process through legitimate authorities who “do not bear the sword in vain.” In fact, they are the “servant[s] of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer. (Rom. 13:4)

Paul affirms the moral integrity of the entire Old Testament by writing in his second letter to Timothy, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3: 15-17) Paul wrote that before any of the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles were even composed.

Those who support abolishing capital punishment cite John 8: 1-11, Jesus’ intervention on behalf of an adulterous woman about to be stoned. Yet not even Sister Helen Prejean, an ardent abolitionist, uses the passage to support her position. Nor does Prejean contend that the abolitionist position has biblical roots. As she wrote in her book, Dead Man Walking:

It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical ‘proof text’ in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this.

Prejean adds that the passage “should be read in its proper context,” as “an ‘entrapment’ story, which sought to show Jesus’ wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment.” (emphasis mine)

In the New Testament, Paul unfolds the philosophy behind the lex talonis. In Chapter 12 of his Letter to the Romans, Paul discourages his readers from avenging themselves by quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 (“Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. I will repay!”). Paul later encourages them to rely on due process through legitimate authorities who “do not bear the sword in vain.” In fact, they are the “servant[s] of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer. (Rom. 13:4)

Paul affirms the moral integrity of the entire Old Testament by writing in his second letter to Timothy, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3: 15-17) Paul wrote that before any of the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles were even composed.

Those who support abolishing capital punishment cite John 8: 1-11, Jesus’ intervention on behalf of an adulterous woman about to be stoned. Yet not even Sister Helen Prejean, an ardent abolitionist, uses the passage to support her position. Nor does Prejean contend that the abolitionist position has biblical roots. As she wrote in her book, Dead Man Walking:

It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical ‘proof text’ in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this.

Prejean adds that the passage “should be read in its proper context,” as “an ‘entrapment’ story, which sought to show Jesus’ wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment.” (emphasis mine)

Isn't it the case that many enemies of the Church have used the term 'ultramontanist' as an insult to attack people who were defending the genuine prerogatives of a Pope? Such people were usually defending national rights in opposition to those of Rome, such as the Gallicans. In these historical cases, the 'ultramontanists' were the good Catholics, surely. Instead of using inappropriate labels, such as 'ultramontanist' or 'papolatrist' you would be better occupied in studying Church teaching on the Papacy. Then it will become clear that the situation can be resolved in a way which is consistent with Catholic teaching. As the first poster suggests, it is not rocket science!

"Such people were usually defending national rights in opposition to those of Rome"

That is at the heart of our crisis which predates Vatican II and results from WWII and the foundation of the American empire. There is little point to the of critique of Francis unless you question the actions of Pius XII - a pope who awarded the head of the CIA a papal knighthood. Similarly, nothing was said when the Italian Christian Democrats accepted debt relief after the war from American banks. Trads and cons want to have their cake and eat it. It's no coincidence that the point man on "team correctio" is Raymond Burke, the latest in a long line of American prelates with dubious connections to an American administration. Please don't misunderstand. It's just as bad on the other side what with American lobbyists and their pathetic German proxies.

That's what we are now - a truly awful group of sinners. Benedict's resignation and silence are about the best thing to have happened to the Church in decades.

This is a very good post and I commend you for it. But it also raises some profound questions with regard to the relationship of Papal Authority and the Truth.

I think that you are quite correct that the Francis papacy strikes a fatal blow to the Ultramontanist tradition which conflates Papal Authority and Truth. I am not a fan of many of Francis's positions, including the recent one on the death penalty, but as I look upon his papacy I am increasingly of the position that perhaps he has been sent by God to shake the pharisaical elements of the Catholic Church that subsist in the traditionalist/conservative faction.

For years, many liberal Catholics were labelled with the moniker of "cafeteria Catholics" for picking and choosing the doctrines and teachings they wished to obey. And yet today I'm seeing the very same thing among the conservative faction, who dismiss Francis's teaching with the same fervor as liberals dismiss Humanae Vitae. What has happened to the Church is that it has become divided among the two types of Cafeteria Catholics, those who want the savoury teachings and those who want the sweet ones. The issue here is, just because I don't like a teaching that Francis is "Authoritatively" promulgating, do I have the right to reject it? I need not remind you that the Pharisees were of the opinion that Jesus was making outrageous claims that contradicted the Jewish tradition. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of many of Francis's positions but has highlighted a serious weakness in the Church.

Blondel saw the dangers of this years ago, but no one listened. One of the great dangers of the Ultramontane tradition has been "monophorism", which resulted in an "infantilisation" of the faithful who were seen to be faithful in the sense they continued to "Pray, Pay and Obey" to the dictates of the clergy.

Where does this leave the ordinary Catholic? The ordinary Catholic is obliged to believe what the Church teaches.

Who is exactly the Church? Because it would appear to me, in the Ultramontane tradition the Church consists of a commanding clergy that dictates to an passive, automaton-like laity whose only role is to receive from "higher up". Perhaps one of the reasons why the flock have been led astray is because when you teach the flock not to think they are quite easily led astray. Though I have grave misgivings with his approach, perhaps Francis is trying to reinvigorate the faithful by trying to awake an ethical sense through the engagement of conscience to contemporary personal existence.

Benedict understood Papal authority better than many Ultramontanists, seeing it as an "aid to conscience" rather than an exercise of power. This, I think, is the big issue here, the relationship of Papal Authority, conscience and truth. The Ultramontane/Conservative faction reduce it to one of simple obedience.

I can't speak for the 'conservatives', but it is precisely because traditional Catholics do not want to 'pick and choose' over doctrine that they have taken the positions they have over the last 50 years. If we could pick and choose we could have ignored the teaching of the Church on usury, nulla salus, religious freedom, and capital punishment. We have not felt able to ignore that teaching. That is just the point.

It's not so difficult to identify what the Church teaches. The unanimous view of the Fathers; the infallible teachings of the General Councils; the constant teaching of the Popes; all of these in relation to the words of Scripture which they interpret with authority. There are marginal cases but the ones I have just listed are not marginal. Only to those determined at all costs to avoid the obvious do these seem open to question.

Chattel slavery is wrong, and at the most has been tolerated ( but ghe infallible magisterium has never proposed it as a good). Penal and indenturd servitude (= apprenticeshps)are a different kettle of fish.

Chattel slavery is wrong, and at the most has been tolerated ( but ghe infallible magisterium has never proposed it as a good). Penal and indenturd servitude (= apprenticeshps)are a different kettle of fish.

It wasn't a cheap point. Slavery went from being tolerable to being an intrinsic evil. (Veritatis Splendor) As I said before, the issue here is the relationship between Papal Authority and the truth. The Ultramontane faction conflates the two.

BTW, that was a pretty insulting reply for what I thought was reasonable point. Made politely, I might add.

Also, is the Pope part of the Church? Or is he only part of the Church when he says stuff that's agreeable?

Not every speech the Pope makes is an exercise in his teaching authority. So he can error. In this case it is possible the Pope is speaking with exaggerated Rhetoric like when our Lord Jesus Christ seems to recommend self mutilation as an a means of avoiding sin (if they right hand offend thee cut it off etc).

The Pope can move the Church away from the death penalty but he can not formally and official teach it is intrinsically evil.